gql_move_post

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Move' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the post in the original space, or potential side effects (e.g., notifications, access changes). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key verb ('Move') and resource, and the parenthetical '(GraphQL)' provides useful technical context without cluttering the main message. Every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error conditions, nor does it describe the return value or success indicators. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both postId and spaceId parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format requirements, validation rules, or relationships between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a post'), and specifies the destination ('to a different space'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like gql_create_post or gql_update_post by focusing on relocation rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other post-related tools like gql_pin_post or gql_follow_post in terms of purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing post and space IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for moving other resources), or compare it to similar tools like gql_update_post (which might handle post content changes). Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.